Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Musammat Fatima Bibi Vs. Musammat Hamida Bibi and ors.

Musammat Fatima Bibi vs Musammat Hamida Bibi and ors.

Type Court Judgment Court Allahabad Decided Mar 16, 1915
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/474389

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Allahabad
Judge
Decided On
Subject
Civil

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Provincial Small Cause Courts Act (IX of 1887) Schedule II, Article 41 - Decree for arrears of rent against joint tenants, realized from our, tenant only--tenants in possession of separate fields in joint khata--Suit for contribution, whether maintainable. -

Key legal issue
Civil

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Musammat Fatima Bibi

Respondent

Musammat Hamida Bibi and ors.

Legal References

Reported In
AIR1915All118; 28Ind.Cas.587

Excerpt

provincial small cause courts act (ix of 1887) schedule ii, article 41 - decree for arrears of rent against joint tenants, realized from our, tenant only--tenants in possession of separate fields in joint khata--suit for contribution, whether maintainable. - chamier, j.1. the parties to this suit are tenants of several fields included in one and the same khata and they pay a lump sum as rent to the zemindar for all the fields. the rent having been realized from the plaintiff alone, she has sued the rest of the tenants for contribution. the plaint has been returned by the judge of the small cause court, on the ground that cognizance of the suit is barred by article 41 of the second schedule to the provincial small cause courts act, as the suit is a suit for contribution by a sharer in joint property in respect of a payment made by him of money due from a co-sharer. it appears that the parties are all related to each other being descendants of the same person, and that they have for convenience' sake allotted to each party a separate field or fields. it is contended that the allotment of fields shows that the property is no longer joint property. i cannot accept this contention. certainly as regards the zemindar all the parties to this suit are jointly liable for the rent. there has been no division of the land between them. i cannot hold that the properly has ceased to be joint property because for the sake of convenience each party cultivates separate fields. it appears that each party is liable for his share of the rent without regard to the actual area of the field. i hold that the court below was right in deciding that the cognizance of this suit is barred by article 41. this application is dismissed with costs.

Full Judgment

Chamier, J.

1. The parties to this suit are tenants of several fields included in one and the same khata and they pay a lump sum as rent to the zemindar for all the fields. The rent having been realized from the plaintiff alone, she has sued the rest of the tenants for contribution. The plaint has been returned by the Judge of the Small Cause Court, on the ground that cognizance of the suit is barred by Article 41 of the second Schedule to the Provincial Small Cause Courts Act, as the suit is a suit for contribution by a sharer in joint property in respect of a payment made by him of money due from a co-sharer. It appears that the parties are all related to each other being descendants of the same person, and that they have for convenience' sake allotted to each party a separate field or fields. It is contended that the allotment of fields shows that the property is no longer joint property. I cannot accept this contention. Certainly as regards the zemindar all the parties to this suit are jointly liable for the rent. There has been no division of the land between them. I cannot hold that the properly has ceased to be joint property because for the sake of convenience each party cultivates separate fields. It appears that each party is liable for his share of the rent without regard to the actual area of the field. I hold that the Court below was right in deciding that the cognizance of this suit is barred by Article 41. This application is dismissed with costs.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial